by The Editorial Board, USA TODAY

by The Editorial Board, USA TODAY

This week, when the Senate rejected a United Nations treaty banning discrimination against the disabled, the vote received relatively little attention. And why would it? The United States already has laws that prevent such bias. They've made curb cuts and wheelchair ramps common sights across America.

But the Senate's failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was nevertheless remarkable - for what it said about the state of domestic politics. Despite GOP efforts to recalibrate after last month's election losses, the treaty vote reflected the continuing influence of a fringe that gets frantic about anything involving the United Nations.

If that sounds unduly harsh, consider the treaty's history. It sprang from an effort to promote worldwide adoption of the values of equality and non-discrimination pioneered by Americans.

One of the treaty's biggest backers is Bob Dole, the former Senate Republican leader, former party chairman and 1996 GOP nominee for president - not to mention a disabled World War II veteran. When Dole, 89, came to the Senate for this week's vote, he was received politely but kept at considerable distance. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another distinguished combat veteran and presidential candidate, is also a big supporter, as are a host of military and veterans organizations. Not long ago, the treaty would have passed easily amid lots of self- congratulations.

But too many in today's GOP have turned their backs on the party's past and embraced concocted scenarios of U.N. bureaucrats telling Americans how to lead their lives and structure their laws. The opponents persuaded 38 Republican senators to vote no, enough to deprive the pact of the two-thirds needed for ratification.

Supporters are vowing to try again next year in the new Senate, but the failure leaves the United States in an odd position. Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (or ADA) has barred discrimination against the disabled and afforded greater access to buildings and public facilities. Now that a movement is spreading for similar laws worldwide, the current Senate has conspicuously declined to give its endorsement.

To be sure, the U.N. is hardly the most efficient or effective organization. It is ponderous, politicized and easily distracted by petty squabbles. But it has no interest in micromanaging U.S. laws or telling Americans how to parent their disabled children, as critics charge. And if it did, it would have no success because it has no tools to pose a threat, nor cause to act because the U.S is the world leader in rights of the disabled. Those who hold the treaty up as some kind of threat are seeing boogeymen.

A more interesting question is how U.S. courts would interpret the treaty. While the ADA is much more detailed, a close reading of the treaty shows a few areas that could be seen as going further. For instance it requires that disabled people have affordable access to mobility devices. Would courts give credence to claims made entirely on the basis of the treaty? Possibly. But with 20 years of case law on discrimination, the chances that major changes would be required seem slim.

By walking away from the treaty, the U.S. loses a chance to champion the principles of non-discrimination overseas. And the Senate looks captive to fringe members peddling half-baked ideas about the U.N.